User talk:Calcetines
Welcome Hi, welcome to Creepypasta Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the 1999 page. Please be sure to check out all the Site Rules, as it is important to follow them. Failure to abide by them may result in your account being blocked. Read some new pastas by checking out or browse by topic by checking out the Genre Listing. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! SoPretentious (talk) 19:16, May 20, 2016 (UTC) EmpyrealInvective (talk) 19:17, May 20, 2016 (UTC) :I was adding the appropriate HTML for the comment on the story, which the author did not write. With the HTML, the author can read the comment when they next edit it, but future readers do not have to be scared off by it. This does not fall under "dding or deleting more lines, modifying the plot of the story or changing the story altogether." Thanks. Calcetines (talk) 19:18, May 20, 2016 (UTC) ::You actually removed content from the page by adding that template as it hides it from view. The fact is, numerous users/podcasts have pointed out that the OP has outright copied content from Alantutorial in his story. As that is technically plagiarism, that message will stay up until he addresses that fact. Removing that message will be treated as an improper edit. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 19:24, May 20, 2016 (UTC) :::Since Giant engineer has left the page unedited for nearly a year, I do not see the comment as fair, especially at the top of the page. Perhaps we could move it down to directly above the controversial paragraph, or open a community discussion to find consensus on what should be done? Thanks. Calcetines (talk) 19:29, May 20, 2016 (UTC) ::::Yes it's extremely unfair that Giant Engineer should have the fact that they directly ripped content off from another story brought up until they explain themselves displayed on their story. As for reaching a consensus, it was mentioned in a staff blog about plagiarism and no one opposed the idea, perhaps because they are wondering why the author used someone else's content without citing the source. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 19:37, May 20, 2016 (UTC) :::::I do not see the section as plagiarism at all - note the reference to Alantutorial's catchphrase "tutorial-heads", which wouldn't be included if the author was trying to pass the concept off as theirs - but I understand your thoughts on it as well. I still feel moving the prominent comment down to the section in question would be best - some readers might pass over the comment and read the controversial section without knowing that the similarity to Alantutorial has already been acknowledged. Thanks again. Calcetines (talk) 19:41, May 20, 2016 (UTC) K, go ahead and discuss it in the comment sections, a few users have already taken to discussing it there. Until the author explains their decision to use content wholesale from another source without citing it, the message will stay where it is so as many people can see it and come to their own conclusions. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 19:45, May 20, 2016 (UTC) :Sorry to ask a question of you, but I'm somewhat confused. Should I ask if others feel the message is misplaced in the article's comment section, or bring up the question of "is it plagiarized" again? Thanks. Calcetines (talk) 19:49, May 20, 2016 (UTC) ::Your choice, just know that the message isn't getting moved until Giant addresses his tendency to not cite his sources/inspirations. Also note that multiple 'canned' reply messages are in fact a violation of our spam comment rules. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 19:53, May 20, 2016 (UTC) :::Would it be possible to get the message moved if there's a clear consensus towards moving it to the appropriate section? I could ask some of the other admins here and/or frequent editors for their thoughts to make sure the consensus isn't made up of 'canned replies.' Thanks. Calcetines (talk) 19:56, May 20, 2016 (UTC) ::::Nope, the admins already decided on it. Relocating/removing it would come across as trying to obscure the fact that the section mentioned is almost a play-by-play of the video with a slight change in wording. Instead of trying to bury that fact or removing it, we should leave it front and center for the author to see it and for users to read it and make an informed decision about whether or not they feel it's plagiarism or poor citation. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 20:04, May 20, 2016 (UTC) :::::Sorry if this comes across as abrupt, but how is moving the message to the section mentioned preventing users from making a decision on whether or not they feel it's plagiarized? If anything, moving it to the section it addresses will assist in allowing users to do this - the controversial section was a new addition to the story anyway and is not relevant to the plot, so placing it on the top of the article makes it seem as if the entire story (or at least a major plot point, which the section is not) is plagiarized. Thanks again. Calcetines (talk) 20:10, May 20, 2016 (UTC) Counter question, how is hiding the message good for anyone? Your recent edit made it invisible to anyone viewing it in any mode except editor mode (a mode very few people use to reader). That message needs to be front-and-center where anyone can read it. Burying it in the text means a lot of people are going to overlook it as they tend to start at the top page (default) and scroll to the very end to see if there've be any updates. I'm sorry, but that's the end of discussion as I'm visiting with family and I've explained our decision pretty thoroughly. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 20:16, May 20, 2016 (UTC) :Sorry, the HTML was an extremely poor decision on my part (my thought was that it would preserve it for the author while being less detrimental to the article's readership). I am now against the HTML entirely. Hopefully you can respond to my question on moving the message later (this will not be "burying" it, as the only applicable section will be the one it is placed in). Thanks. Calcetines (talk) 20:21, May 20, 2016 (UTC)